Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

[Killer Shrike]

Perusing the new 6e features, I find myself intrigued by Damage Negation and have a few thoughts on it.

 

First off, I like it in theory. Very elegant and direct mechanic.

 

In practice, I have a few concerns, in no particular order.

 

1) Usage: It requires up-front modification of dice rolled. This effectively rules out pre-rolled damage totals, a common GM trick to speed combat, being used against characters with DN.

 

It could also result in botched rolls if the roller gets antsy and throws the dice before the total is modified, or if DN is forgotten at first.

 

It makes AoE attacks even more complicated to resolve.

 

Some GM's go out of their way to keep combat descriptive and removed from mechanical labels, and DN flies directly in the face of that as in the case of bad guys w/ DN, it forces the GM to communicate some mechanical info directly to the players, as in "roll 6 fewer dice". In addition to the disclosure, this kind of conversation explicitly introduces meta considerations and could lead to meta-gamed decision making on the part of the players (I'll use my DN-negating attack next!).

 

2) Auto-Hoser: The DN hosing Reduced Negation Adder introduces an instance of symmetrical rules elements, where X levels of an ability directly turns off X levels of another ability, as does Damage Negation itself. This has some interesting permutations mechanically, but really it seems to me that if such a model is in use then it should have been used more broadly as a core concept rather than as a tacked-on edge case. For instance, AP and Penetrating and their corresponding hosers could have been reworked in this format on both sides (attack and defense).

 

Further, the commonality of attack MP's and the cheapness of adding a slot suggests to me that most such characters will end up w/ a DN hosing slot, particularly if the GM doesn't strongly enforce concept and make them really justify it.

 

I think that this idiom will make DN based characters surprisingly brittle. Vs normal foes and environmental threats the DN-Man shrugs damage then MultipowerMan comes along and DN-Man bounces the first shot but is creamed by the second after MultipowerMan switches slots.

 

At 2 points per level vs 5 points per level, even a 60 AP attack can afford to cancel a sizable chunk of DN and still be effective assuming DN-Man doesn't have decent amounts of traditional defenses. 3 points per level of DN hosing might have been a better price, but the underlying disparity is still there.

 

When you further consider that many DN-based characters probably split their points between Phys and Energy similar to the way most characters structure their traditional defenses, while an attacker only has to beat the DN across one vector, the disparity is even worse.

 

Personally, it seems to me that Reduced Negation should be more tied to SFX, particularly when priced at 2 points per level. However, as DN and RN are both pure mechanics doing this would likely prove to be difficult to define on a case by case basis.

 

3) -6 DC vs 30 nD vs 20 rD:

 

The max roll of 6d6 n damage is 36, while the average is 21. If Reduced Negation doesnt enter into the equation, Damage Negation is clearly better here even if you don't consider the KB implications or the variety of other things DN can potentially protect against such as a 6d6 AP or Penetrating attack.

 

The max roll of 9d6 is 54 while the average is 32. At 3d6 over DN the range is 11 to 18. nDEF looks better here vs. average damage (taking 2 vs 11) but DN still wins vs max damage (taking 18 vs 24).

 

The max roll of 12d6 is 72 while the average 42; 6d6 over DN the range is 21 to 36. nDEF is still better vs average, and DN is still better at max, but its clear that the progression is degrading and eventually nDEF wins out vs bigger attacks (though its likely a Pyrrhic victory).

 

Switching over to k damage, at 2d6k (6DCs) DN still gets the win over rDEF due to its secondary benefits of effect cancellation.

 

At 3d6k (9 DCs), rDEF looks a whole lot better. The 1d6 Killing over the top of DN is going to really hurt, while the rDEF bounces it all.

 

At 4d6 (12 DCs) rDEF will bounce all but the highest rolls while DN lets a lot of BODY damage get through even on average.

 

The STUN multiplier and any unresistant base PD / ED are the wildcards here, of course, but rDEF is generally better at stopping killing damage (as it should be).

 

 

Overall, it seems pretty clear that Damage Negation is competitive with standard def based defenses vs vanilla damage. It's effect-stopping benefits are clear pros, but its vulnerability to a cheap hoser is a sharp con.

 

More specifically though, DN as Invulnerability kind of falls apart unless a character has very high levels of DN, as anything past the DN threshold gets through and really hurts. Similar to the effect of a vehicles DEF, without some backup defense such a character will go from unhurt to broken quickly if they encounter something able to crest or ignore their DN.

 

 

Hybrid: It seems clear to me that DN is most effective when used as part of a hybrid defense strategy. A character combing DN with some other defense should be able to find some "sweet spots" where the risk of one is offset by another. A character with say 15 nPD 10 rPD and -3DC DN for 45 points is probably doing better overall than a character with 30 rPD or 45 nPD or -9DC DN.

 

I wont be surprised to see characters with such hybrid defenses crop up. And to some extent that's very normal; just as many HERO characters of past editions have freely mixed rPD and nPD as desired.

 

he official published characters will give us a hint of whats expected, but just as in past editions the local meta-game of a given group dictated the prevalence of AP and Penetrating and Hardened defenses (I recall one GM's campaign where if you didnt have double hardened defenses you would likely regret it due to his penchant for double AP or double Pen attacks for instance), I think a similar effect will take place around DN and Reduced Negation.

 

Still and all, while I like DN and think it allows for some very interesting concepts, I have sufficient concerns to adopt a "wait and see" approach.

 

 

Am I missing anything that changes the fundamental basis of my consideration? Anyone have their own thoughts to share on this ability?

[mattingly]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

1) Usage: It requires up-front modification of dice rolled. This effectively rules out pre-rolled damage totals, a common GM trick to speed combat, being used against characters with DN.

 

It makes AoE attacks even more complicated to resolve.

The DN doesn't have to be handled up front. It's just as easy to roll the DN dice after the attack, like the 5E absorption as defense used to work. Instead of the attacker rolling 12d6 against everyone else, and only 6d6 against DN Man, the attacker could announce his (pre-rolled, AOE, or explosion) total damage, and DN Man rolls his 6d6 to see how much was negated.

 

Sure the actual 6d6 that the attacker rolled won't exactly match the dice rolled by DN Man, but on average they'll balance out.

 

Or, any attacker going after DN Man could roll 6 red dice and 6 blue dice, or whatever, and DN Man can remind them that he's "immune to blue dice."

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

The DN doesn't have to be handled up front. It's just as easy to roll the DN dice after the attack, like the 5E absorption as defense used to work. Instead of the attacker rolling 12d6 against everyone else, and only 6d6 against DN Man, the attacker could announce his (pre-rolled, AOE, or explosion) total damage, and DN Man rolls his 6d6 to see how much was negated.

 

Sure the actual 6d6 that the attacker rolled won't exactly match the dice rolled by DN Man, but on average they'll balance out.

 

Or, any attacker going after DN Man could roll 6 red dice and 6 blue dice, or whatever, and DN Man can remind them that he's "immune to blue dice."

 

There are a few small mechanical problems with that. I could roll 12d6 on my attack and get 15 (really bad roll; mostly 1s on the dice), whereas you roll your 6d6 DN and get 20. Oops. Ah well; it was a pretty cruddy damage roll to begin with, so I don't care that much that it didn't get past your defenses. Or I could roll 12d6 on my attack and get 65 (many 5s and 6s) and you could roll your DN and get 10 (whereas you should be negating more like 30-35). It may balance out a bit, but I think you're going to feel gypped BIG TIME in that latter case.

 

Also you can't just roll 6 red and 6 blue dice. I might have 6 levels of DN, but the guy next to me only has 3. Oops.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Your whole post pretty much captures the essence of what I've felt about DN from the start KS. An interesting idea, but not real good on the gaming table. Now that we have it, how are we going to fix our gaming experience to handle it without major growing pains? :-/

[mattingly]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It may balance out a bit' date=' but I think you're going to feel gypped BIG TIME in that latter case.[/quote']

That's why I said on average they'll balance out. Sometimes the defender will come out ahead, sometimes behind. With twelve players in my group, I value speed over rules stickling. The answer for you might be to roll each die separately, and keep a running total, but for me, "quick and close" is good enough.

 

Also you can't just roll 6 red and 6 blue dice. I might have 6 levels of DN' date=' but the guy next to me only has 3. Oops.[/quote']

Right. If you have more than one character involved, with differing levels of DN, either choose appropriate numbers of color-coded dice, or roll them all one at a time.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I am writing here without actually having a copy of 6e, so please forgive my ignorance.

 

In the case of pre-rolled damage, why not just have some pre-rolled Damage Negation too? It doesn't work quite like straight up DN, but close enough. Or just rule "Standard Effect" and subtract 3 points per die (or 3.5 if you are feeling generous).

 

I agree that DN will make for brittle characters, but I think that could be an asset too when it comes to making mega-villains that the heroes can only defeat in a certain way. And I think that DN as part of an Invulnerability model could work well, but obviously you are going to need some standard defense to buffer things.

 

I have had characters under 5e with clunky Suppress vs. Incoming Damage constructs to represent unusual types of defense, so I for one am really glad to see the addition of Damage Negation. Now I just have to get my hands on a copy of 6e...

[Rockhoof]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

My solution to the "What dice are negated?" question is always the same whenever this style of mechanic comes up in gameplay:

 

"What dice are closest to you?"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

The DN doesn't have to be handled up front. It's just as easy to roll the DN dice after the attack, like the 5E absorption as defense used to work. Instead of the attacker rolling 12d6 against everyone else, and only 6d6 against DN Man, the attacker could announce his (pre-rolled, AOE, or explosion) total damage, and DN Man rolls his 6d6 to see how much was negated.

 

Sure the actual 6d6 that the attacker rolled won't exactly match the dice rolled by DN Man, but on average they'll balance out.

 

I think this is an interesting approach that could make for a useful optional rule. Essentially, you have some random defenses. You could take this one step further and rule that, if your Damage Negation equals or exceeds the attacker's DC's, the entire attack is negated automatically. This provides greater certainty for the "invulnerable" concept, and eliminates rolls against smaller attacks.

[torchwolf]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I think this is an interesting approach that could make for a useful optional rule. Essentially' date=' you have some random defenses. You could take this one step further and rule that, if your Damage Negation equals or exceeds the attacker's DC's, the entire attack is negated automatically. This provides greater certainty for the "invulnerable" concept, and eliminates rolls against smaller attacks.[/quote']

 

It is quite useful as a build for the optional Absolute Effect invulnerability, although it might be overly effective against Mental Blast, more so than Mental Defense. It would usually not be reasonable to allow Only vs STUN when buying Mental DG.

 

I suspect it will be used extensively in Fantasy campaigns with Only vs Magic. It covers the same ground as the suggested Arcane Defense but much better.

[Yansuf]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

That's why I said on average they'll balance out. Sometimes the defender will come out ahead, sometimes behind. With twelve players in my group, I value speed over rules stickling. The answer for you might be to roll each die separately, and keep a running total, but for me, "quick and close" is good enough.

 

 

Right. If you have more than one character involved, with differing levels of DN, either choose appropriate numbers of color-coded dice, or roll them all one at a time.

 

Alternately, if math doesn't frighten you, you can use fractions!

If the attack is 12 dice and the negation is 6 dice, cut the attack effect in half.

For 12 attack and 5 negation, you use 58% of the damage. (Calculators help.)

[torchwolf]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Alternately, if math doesn't frighten you, you can use fractions!

If the attack is 12 dice and the negation is 6 dice, cut the attack effect in half.

For 12 attack and 5 negation, you use 58% of the damage. (Calculators help.)

 

What do you mean, you want to use math in the Hero System? How would anyone on these boards ever think that?

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Another option would be to just alternate between removing the highest then lowest dice for DN. No meta disclosure to players necessary. It would just require that players make and leave ALL damage dice rolls in view of the GM.

[torchwolf]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Another option would be to just alternate between removing the highest then lowest dice for DN. No meta disclosure to players necessary. It would just require that players make and leave ALL damage dice rolls in view of the GM.

 

Also, the uses of for instance Armor Piercing and Penetrating hitting the Damage Negation and then applying to other defenses (and god forbid, a stacked Damage Reduction! ) would complicate most other solutions than asking the players to leave their roll in GMs view - if you want to calculate the results secretly.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I note that the "defenses" of Damage Negation thus far revolve around not actually using the mechanic but rather some other mechanic entirely.

 

 

Anyone got any commentary on the Damage Negation rules as written?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It might have made more sense to remove the largest rolls first, as in Explosion, or even subtract the DN damage directly from the attack damage.

 

Something for 6ER, I guess.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Or' date=' any attacker going after DN Man could roll 6 red dice and 6 blue dice, or whatever, and DN Man can remind them that he's "immune to blue dice."[/quote']

 

I know it has nothing to do with what you said, but the idea was so silly I couldn't help myself.

 

I want DN, Only Vs. Blue Dice.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

I like the idea of DN from a game play POV: if the villain has 6DN then the players are all rolling 6d6 attacks not 12d6 attacks - that will speed things up.

 

KS makes excellent points in his analysis and it is certainly easy to hose DN if you have a MP. 10d6 + 5 levels of DN reduction is 60 points.

 

I have not used it in play yet, and will comment more when I've given it a go.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It is quite useful as a build for the optional Absolute Effect invulnerability' date=' although it might be overly effective against Mental Blast, more so than Mental Defense. It would usually not be reasonable to allow Only vs STUN when buying Mental DG.[/quote']

 

"Only vs Stun" would mean not affecting Mind Control, Telepathy or Mental Illusions, wouldn't it? I think limited defenses has to assess what the defense would normally work against, and how much has been removed vs retained, to set an appropriate limitation. That will differ for exotic vs standard defenses, because they apply against different things.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

"Only vs Stun" would mean not affecting Mind Control' date=' Telepathy or Mental Illusions, wouldn't it? I think limited defenses has to assess what the defense would normally work against, and how much has been removed vs retained, to set an appropriate limitation. That will differ for exotic vs standard defenses, because they apply against different things.[/quote']

 

DN wouldn't normally work against the effect rolls of those attacks. Without the specific permission of the GM, it affects only things that do Body/Stun damage. So on a Mental DN, I'd say Only vs. Stun is normally a -0.

 

It works against Normal Damage' date=' AVADs, Killing Attacks, Drain STUN or Drain BODY (but not other types of Drains), and any other type of damage the GM allows it to affect in its category.[/quote']

[NestorDRod]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't have the 6E book and I'm simply curious.

 

What exactly is Damage Negation supposed to represent that wasn't already being done by other Defensive powers?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Here's something that works for me - a certain Amazon's wrist jewellery seems to work very nicely with this power:

Guns? Pah!: Damage Negation (-6 DCs Physical, -6 DCs Energy) (60 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only v 'direct impact' small diameter ranged attacks; -1), Concentration, Must Concentrate throughout use of Constant Power (1/2 DCV; -1/2), OIF (Focus:bracers; -1/2), Requires A Roll (14- roll; -1/4)

 

The problem with missile deflection (now Deflection) is that you're bound to let some through and WW always seems to be able to deflect even full clips AND the problem with other defences is that they need to be REAL high or they almost always let some damage though.

 

Against 'guns' (including laser guns and such) (up to 6d6 normal/2d6 killing) these work really well.

[Rockhoof]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

Pardon my ignorance, but I don't have the 6E book and I'm simply curious.

 

What exactly is Damage Negation supposed to represent that wasn't already being done by other Defensive powers?

 

 

It models the ability to completely ignore certain levels of damage. Give a tank 6DN - only vs. small arms. Also included is the ability to create a target that's easy to *hit* but hard to *hurt*.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It models the ability to completely ignore certain levels of damage. Give a tank 6DN - only vs. small arms. Also included is the ability to create a target that's easy to *hit* but hard to *hurt*.

 

OK, but I'm still not clear how that is something that wasn't already available using existing Powers. Give something 12 DEF, and it pretty much ignores anything less than an assault rifle.

[Ice9]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

What exactly is Damage Negation supposed to represent that wasn't already being done by other Defensive powers?

It creates a sharper cutoff than Resistant Defense - if you want to be immune to small arms but still in danger from rockets or heavy weaponry, for instance. rPD 20 will usually block a 2d6 RKA, but not always, and it will sometimes block a much higher RKA on a poor roll. DN 6 will always block the pistol, and never completely block stronger weapons.

 

Also, it can be combined with Resistant Defense in a hybrid defense strategy, so that you're not completely exposed to Penetrating or AVAD attacks.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

 

It creates a sharper cutoff than Resistant Defense - if you want to be immune to small arms but still in danger from rockets or heavy weaponry, for instance. rPD 20 will usually block a 2d6 RKA, but not always, and it will sometimes block a much higher RKA on a poor roll. DN 6 will always block the pistol, and never completely block stronger weapons.

 

20 rPD?

 

for a 2d6 RKA, 12 rPD is all you need to completely block an attack. And if the higher attack rolls poorly, well it rolled poorly.

 

12 DEF will, to quote you, "always block the pistol, and never completely block stronger weapons." I really don't see the difference.

 

Also, it can be combined with Resistant Defense in a hybrid defense strategy, so that you're not completely exposed to Penetrating or AVAD attacks.

 

Why do you need that? Is Hardened Defense no longer available?